Immigration, Deportation, and Catholicism

[Stonehouse]

Many of us think we ‘…know our heart…’ but it is knowing our minds that makes the real difference." (END QUOTE)

Part of the confusion arising out of Biblical references to the heart may result from our having forgotten how the ancients viewed that organ. “In the fourth century B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle identified the heart as the most important organ of the body… It was the seat of intelligence… Aristotle described it as … the center of vitality in the body. Other organs surrounding it (e.g. brain and lungs) simply existed to cool the heart.” (stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/heartpages/heart.html)

Note that while in Biblical times the heart was seen as the seat of intelligence, and hence of reason, the brain was considered merely an auxiliary organ which served to cool it. Since we now know otherwise, Biblical references to the heart should not be taken as functional anatomy. When a verse of scripture refers to knowledge “in the heart,” this can only be reasonably understood to mean “in the mind,” as that construct relates to the brain. It is our brain–our reason–that we are called upon to exercise in our deliberation of moral questions.

One of the functions of our brain is to signal alarm to our bodies. Our hearts receive many of these hormonal messages. Adrenolin, for example, is generated when we are angry or afraid, and our heart rate is accelerated. We feel corresponding changes in our chest when this happens, and quite naturally associate these feelings with the immediate emotions. But the heart itself, as far as we know at least, is incapable of either thought or emotion.

When we rely upon that visceral feeling in our core to make important moral decisions, we are abdicating our responsibility to employ our rational faculties and instead falling back upon what merely makes us feel good. To be sympathetic with others is a good thing, as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. It does not tell us either the most effective or the morally correct way to proceed. What the expression of emotion can do very well, however, is entice others to “feel with” (sym-pathy) those seen as in distress rather than to “think with” those who seek a rational and effective solution to the problem. The “heart” is also quick to condemn others not perceived as sharing the same depth of feeling, even when those others may be doing a great deal more about the problem. It is easy to perceive a lack of external emotion as “hard hearted.” The soldier who is dying for his country may not appear as “sensitive” as the politician who is lying for it.

This is the basis of the self-righteousness so often demonstrated by devout liberals. They are deeply moved in their hearts, but find themselves unwilling or powerless to remedy the situation that is causing them distress. For example, the plight of illegal aliens is often very touching, and we all agree that something must be done. But the liberal, rather than commit to the difficult personal sacrifice that Christ requires from each of us, demands that others be forced to bear that burden. Often, such liberals have an underlying agenda that is more than a little self-serving. Those receiving “benefits” (best translated “freebies”) are often the most outspoken advocates for the poor, of whom they count themselves a member.

But there is another class of advocate for these calls “of the heart.” This the professional demagogue who builds a cushy political career by promoting the deeply felt envy of those who have been less fortunate or less successful. These are the slick advocates of government programs for everything. They deeply “feel your pain” but takes a tax deduction on their used underwear nonetheless. Professor Walter Williams has called this class of opportunist “poverty pimps,” and that is as good a term as any. Our government is now saturated with them, and they can often be identified by their corruption in office and their failure to pay their taxes. Sadly, some of them have found their way into the Church as well, where they now agitate for “liberation theology,” the heretical doctrine that the state should be empowered to force you to sacrifice your substance for causes of their choosing.

As Margaret Thatcher has pointed out, the problem with government programs is that sooner or later you always run out of other people’s money. Our politicians have found a solution to the impending federal bankruptcy in pledging our children and grandchildren to bondage. As a nation, we can no longer afford our own entitlements, let alone accept millions of new dependents. So I say to all you liberals out there, have a heart!

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Stonehouse,

Truly, an articulate presentation…

God bless

Many of us think we ‘…know our heart…’ but it is knowing our minds that makes the real difference." (END QUOTE)

Part of the confusion arising out of Biblical references to the heart may result from our having forgotten how the ancients viewed that organ. “In the fourth century B. C., the Greek philosopher Aristotle identified the heart as the most important organ of the body… It was the seat of intelligence… Aristotle described it as … the center of vitality in the body. Other organs surrounding it (e.g. brain and lungs) simply existed to cool the heart.” (stanford.edu/class/history13/earlysciencelab/body/heartpages/heart.html)

Note that while in Biblical times the heart was seen as the seat of intelligence, and hence of reason, the brain was considered merely an auxiliary organ which served to cool it. Since we now know otherwise, Biblical references to the heart should not be taken as functional anatomy. When a verse of scripture refers to knowledge “in the heart,” this can only be reasonably understood to mean “in the mind,” as that construct relates to the brain. It is our brain–our reason–that we are called upon to exercise in our deliberation of moral questions.

One of the functions of our brain is to signal alarm to our bodies. Our hearts receive many of these hormonal messages. Adrenolin, for example, is generated when we are angry or afraid, and our heart rate is accelerated. We feel corresponding changes in our chest when this happens, and quite naturally associate these feelings with the immediate emotions. But the heart itself, as far as we know at least, is incapable of either thought or emotion.

When we rely upon that visceral feeling in our core to make important moral decisions, we are abdicating our responsibility to employ our rational faculties and instead falling back upon what merely makes us feel good. To be sympathetic with others is a good thing, as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. It does not tell us either the most effective or the morally correct way to proceed. What the expression of emotion can do very well, however, is entice others to “feel with” (sym-pathy) those seen as in distress rather than to “think with” those who seek a rational and effective solution to the problem. The “heart” is also quick to condemn others not perceived as sharing the same depth of feeling, even when those others may be doing a great deal more about the problem. It is easy to perceive a lack of external emotion as “hard hearted.” The soldier who is dying for his country may not appear as “sensitive” as the politician who is lying for it.

This is the basis of the self-righteousness so often demonstrated by devout liberals. They are deeply moved in their hearts, but find themselves unwilling or powerless to remedy the situation that is causing them distress. For example, the plight of illegal aliens is often very touching, and we all agree that something must be done. But the liberal, rather than commit to the difficult personal sacrifice that Christ requires from each of us, demands that others be forced to bear that burden. Often, such liberals have an underlying agenda that is more than a little self-serving. Those receiving “benefits” (best translated “freebies”) are often the most outspoken advocates for the poor, of whom they count themselves a member.

But there is another class of advocate for these calls “of the heart.” This the professional demagogue who builds a cushy political career by promoting the deeply felt envy of those who have been less fortunate or less successful. These are the slick advocates of government programs for everything. They deeply “feel your pain” but takes a tax deduction on their used underwear nonetheless. Professor Walter Williams has called this class of opportunist “poverty pimps,” and that is as good a term as any. Our government is now saturated with them, and they can often be identified by their corruption in office and their failure to pay their taxes. Sadly, some of them have found their way into the Church as well, where they now agitate for “liberation theology,” the heretical doctrine that the state should be empowered to force you to sacrifice your substance for causes of their choosing.

As Margaret Thatcher has pointed out, the problem with government programs is that sooner or later you always run out of other people’s money. Our politicians have found a solution to the impending federal bankruptcy in pledging our children and grandchildren to bondage. As a nation, we can no longer afford our own entitlements, let alone accept millions of new dependents. So I say to all you liberals out there, have a heart!

 

[Tigg]

Note that while in Biblical times the heart was seen as the seat of intelligence, and hence of reason, the brain was considered merely an auxiliary organ which served to cool it. Since we now know otherwise, Biblical references to the heart should not be taken as functional anatomy. When a verse of scripture refers to knowledge “in the heart,” this can only be reasonably understood to mean “in the mind,” as that construct relates to the brain. It is our brain–our reason–that we are called upon to exercise in our deliberation of moral questions.

One of the functions of our brain is to signal alarm to our bodies. Our hearts receive many of these hormonal messages. Adrenolin, for example, is generated when we are angry or afraid, and our heart rate is accelerated. We feel corresponding changes in our chest when this happens, and quite naturally associate these feelings with the immediate emotions. But the heart itself, as far as we know at least, is incapable of either thought or emotion.

When we rely upon that visceral feeling in our core to make important moral decisions, we are abdicating our responsibility to employ our rational faculties and instead falling back upon what merely makes us feel good. To be sympathetic with others is a good thing, as far as it goes. But it does not go far enough. It does not tell us either the most effective or the morally correct way to proceed. What the expression of emotion can do very well, however, is entice others to “feel with” (sym-pathy) those seen as in distress rather than to “think with” those who seek a rational and effective solution to the problem. The “heart” is also quick to condemn others not perceived as sharing the same depth of feeling, even when those others may be doing a great deal more about the problem. It is easy to perceive a lack of external emotion as “hard hearted.” The soldier who is dying for his country may not appear as “sensitive” as the politician who is lying for it.

As Margaret Thatcher has pointed out, the problem with government programs is that sooner or later you always run out of other people’s money. Our politicians have found a solution to the impending federal bankruptcy in pledging our children and grandchildren to bondage. As a nation, we can no longer afford our own entitlements, let alone accept millions of new dependents. So I say to all you liberals out there, have a heart!

**You really need to be published! ** This is a wonderful post.

My understanding of the biblical connotation of heart means the total man using his understanding, knowledge, discernment and experience, indeed his reason, so I agree with all you have written.

Is not liberal sentimentality built upon idealism and equality? And do they not also say that equality means everyone should have access to the fruits of the labor of society? No need for sacrifice or discipline, but that every kindness should be extended and every punishment withheld if one comes from an environment which has created his impoverished condition? I know Pope Leo had quite a bit to say in refuting this - if only I can find which encyclical that this was addressed.

To those entering illegally I would ask……do you in any way understand the sacrifice of those who have gone before us to create this republic, or realize that your flaunting of our laws show us you do not honestly value the inheritance which you are taking by force?

 

[graciew]

Nothing was ever more of a mess than Calvary.You are in our prayers.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Reflection on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ +

The agony in the garden was really the agony in His mind. He suffered the passion in His mind before He suffered it in His body—to the point of actually affecting the latter by sweating blood. But from then on, it was His bodily suffering that affected His mental suffering.

At the base of all His suffering was the one thing that human beings dread the most: rejection. He was betrayed by Judas, denied by Peter and abandoned by all the rest of His Apostles; those He had hand picked as His closest intimates. He was most rejected by those who put Him to death. They not only wanted Him dead, they wanted Him to suffer. They not only considered Him to be worth nothing, they considered Him to be worth minus nothing! This significance was not lost on Him. He felt fully the rejection as each physical agony reminded Him.

So we thank Him for joining us on our human journey and actually choosing to experience what we fear the most.

We thank Him for enduring the arrest and the cruelty of the guards and the Sanhedrin. We thank Him for enduring the cruelty of Pilate who allowed Him to be executed rather than risk his own political ruin—and for the cruelty of Herod who wanted to be entertained by having Him work a miracle. We thank Him for all the time He spent satisfying their preoccupation with themselves, just delaying His ultimate death. We thank Him for the anxiety of that night in a cell.

The next morning He was brutally scourged with such intensity and violence that He became as an aged man in a matter of minutes. His multiple wounds bloodied His entire body. The loss of so much blood not only severely weakened Him; it also caused a severe, throbbing headache that remained with Him for the duration.

We thank Him for this and for the mockery He received when they put a purple cloth on His shoulders and pushed a crown of thorns down into His head which intensified His headache. They blindfolded Him and slapped Him, insisting that He ‘prophesy’ who had hit Him. They spat on Him and beat Him.

He stood at the praetorium in utter disgrace according to the attitude of the crowd—while in reality, He stood in utter glory: almighty God, being present to every person who has ever suffered rejection, joining them in their moment of pain. It was there that He was sentenced to death by crucifixion. Physically, He was utterly miserable. He revealed to St. Bernard that carrying the cross was His most painful agony. He was so weak, He could hardly walk. Nauseous and thirsty, He found the weight of the cross on His shoulder almost unbearable. It most likely dislocated His shoulder. It is not surprising that He fell down on the stone streets that were filthy with animal dung—with the cross on top of Him. And He got up each time.

It was only with the help of Simon of Cyrene that He made it to the top of Calvary. There they drove the nails into the carpal tunnels of His hands, causing pain throughout His upper body. The nail in His feet registered great pain through all the sensitive nerves there. When the cross was righted, His up-stretched arms squeezed His lungs and He began to pant for lack of oxygen. So He had to push down on His crucified feet to push His body up in order to fill His lungs with air. This took great effort because He was so weak. Yet He managed to maintain such effort for three hours of agony which increased gradually as He became weaker moment by moment.

By the end of the third hour, His agony was at its peak. He had come to the point where His strength simply gave out and He suffocated. In this eternal moment as He died, He gave us His life. Transcending time, this moment of divine love is present to us in the tabernacles of the world.

Thank you, Lord. We adore you O Christ and we praise you. By your holy cross, you have redeemed the world.

---

Additional recent answers by Fr. Vincent Serpa

 

[Stonehouse]

Nothing was ever more of a mess than Calvary.You are in our prayers.

Fr. Vincent Serpa, O.P.

Reflection on the Passion of Our Lord Jesus Christ +

The agony in the garden was really the agony in His mind. He suffered the passion in His mind before He suffered it in His body—to the point of actually affecting the latter by sweating blood. But from then on, it was His bodily suffering that affected His mental suffering…

By the end of the third hour, His agony was at its peak. He had come to the point where His strength simply gave out and He suffocated. In this eternal moment as He died, He gave us His life. Transcending time, this moment of divine love is present to us in the tabernacles of the world.

Thank you, Lord. We adore you O Christ and we praise you. By your holy cross, you have redeemed the world.

---

Additional recent answers by Fr. Vincent Serpa

To tie this narrative to the theme of the present thread, since it otherwise seems to have no connection, we might note the reason, from a political perspective, that Christ was crucified. Recalling his trial, it is clear that the state (Sanhedrin) decided that this individual (Jesus) should be sacrificed for the good of the whole people. Whenever government decides to abrogate individual liberty for some perceived greater good it violates justice.

This is why an evil means may never be employed to a good end–even a good political end. It is why, when I see someone in need, it is not my prerogative to place a dagger at your breast and demand that you help him. The plight of illegal aliens is indeed troubling, as is the condition of billions in other impoverished regions of the world. Each of us is obliged to help these poor to the extent that we are able. But that does not mean that we are at liberty to collectively empower government to despoil our neighbors for that purpose, any more than we are at liberty to authorize government to hang an innocent man upon a cross.

As a practical matter, our first obligation is to preserve this system of political liberty and economic prosperity we call America. It is unique in the history of the world, and has inspired many other nations to rise up from the degradation of tyranny and poverty. To allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by hordes who neither understand nor appreciate the delicate requirements of self-government would be a form of cultural suicide from which no one would benefit. Where will the Hispanics go, I would ask, when we become like Mexico?

The best and most enduring way we can help the world’s poor is to show them by example how to order their political and economic affairs. That is why we need to carefully regulate immigration, and why illegal immigration is a severe violation of justice and a serious threat to our nation.

I would add as a final thought that if forcing people to do what is right were a part of God’s plan he could have done that himself. There was certainly no need for Him to send his son. Jesus compelled no one.

 

[graciew]

Hi, Graciew,

Tom,I do not object to the term Hispanic,yet it involves a huge amount of people and the reason appears to be the language spoken by the vast group.
By addressing to Spanish speaking population,the issue appears to englobe all central and south america(even Brazil if the word Latinos is used).
Also I address to the diversity of characteristics among the constituent countries,that is why I compared US to Australia and UK.,under their language origin.
And I wonder why you do not refer to Mexicans,Bolivians,Brazilians,etc in particular.What is it that bonds us all aprt from the Language in your opinion,Tom?
No,I understand “yanki” is not derogative as “Hispanic” or "Latino"may not be in themselves,I refer to the sentiment that accompanies it.

What I underlined,was that in the big picture,mass deportation would leave no country untouched borders down under the Hispanic term,and you are ok in your exaple with Chavez.Right.
And one issue about your questions,you are asking me to suppose there is a horde,and here the millions arrived gradually.Shall we reframe it?
God bless you.

 

[d97c]

While I understand that this is not a political commentary forum, this most recent poll of Arizona voters reflects the problems with border state, uncontrolled, unlimited illegal immigration. Oh sure, we can see the fellow here cutting lawns or whatever, and feel like we should be kind and loving and feel good about THAT person, but you get to those people whose lives and community are ruined by overwhelming illegal immigration and you see the lopsided poll vote you see here:
"A poll released Wednesday found that an overwhelming majority of Arizona voters support the types of provisions that are at the heart of a national debate involving the state’s immigration law.

**The survey conducted on behalf of Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute for Public Policy found 81 percent of registered voters approved of requiring people to produce documents that show they’re in the country legally.

It found that 74 percent believe police should be allowed to detain anyone who’s unable to verify their legal immigration status, and 68 percent say police should be allowed to question anyone suspected of being in the country illegally.**The survey of 614 registered voters was conducted July 16-Aug. 6 and has a sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Halfway through the poll’s duration, U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton put the law’s most controversial portions on hold.

Bolton blocked contentious provisions that required immigrants to obtain or carry immigration registration papers, and one that required police, while enforcing other laws, to question people’s immigration status if there is a reasonable suspicion they’re in the country illegally."
townhall.com/news/us/2010/09/01/poll_ariz_voters_favor_immigration_enforcement

 

[Stonehouse]

Tom,I do not object to the term Hispanic,yet it involves a huge amount of people and the reason appears to be the language spoken by the vast group…

No,I understand “yanki” is not derogative as “Hispanic” or "Latino"may not be in themselves,I refer to the sentiment that accompanies it.

And one issue about your questions,you are asking me to suppose there is a horde,and here the millions arrived gradually.Shall we reframe it?
God bless you.

Let’s try not to be unreasonable sensitive over labels. In the first place “yanki” is indeed a derogatory term. I don’t personally mind it, but as a matter of fact it is a variation of the 18th Century “Yankee Doodle” which meant a colonial American boob who “put a feather in his hat and called it macaroni.” “Macaroni” was a kind of fashionable military decoration employed by civilized Europeans. The point of this derisive English epithet was that Americans were unsophisticated peasants. It is hard to think of a term more intended to be derogatory than “Yankee” and its derivatives.

By contrast, the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic” were self-selected by people of Central and southern American heritage, and include not only those of Spanish descent but also many who are entirely or almost entirely of American aboriginal and even of African origin. Latina Magazine, for example, reserves its pages for females with at least some trace of Iberian or southerly American Indian or black ancestry. I do not believe Brazilians are excluded. These usages are historically recent, and were intended to show a common interest among peoples of the various “Latin” American countries who share certain ethnic traits. As such they are terms of exclusion, and therefore essentially racist in the same way that “White” would be racist if those of European stock were to consolidate behind it and employ it to separate their interests from those of others in the society.

Today, even “hordes” seem to be easily offended. I looked up the web definition, and according to Google there is nothing in the term to suggest that a horde cannot move gradually. Here are the definitions: “•a vast multitude •a nomadic community •a moving crowd.” It took four centuries for the barbarian invasions to collapse Rome. There was no grand army, and no decisive battle. Rome fell to hordes of illegal immigrants who, by the way, were not Latino or Hispanic (except for the Visigoths).

Finally, it is grossly bigoted for anyone to assume that he knows “the sentiment that accompanies” someone else’s use of the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic.” This is an insinuation of racism that offers nothing whatever as evidence, and suggests an intent to put the whole topic outside the bounds of discussion. What other term are we to use? If “Latino” and “Hispanic” are proscribed, I can think of no substitute that everyone would accept, and it concerns me that that may be the intent. In the current political climate, when someone calls me an “Anglo” I could easily choose to take offense. But I don’t. I presume good will and accept it as a purely descriptive term. Let’s try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

 

[graciew]

Today, even “hordes” seem to be easily offended. I looked up the web definition, and according to Google there is nothing in the term to suggest that a horde cannot move gradually. Here are the definitions: “•a vast multitude •a nomadic community •a moving crowd.” It took four centuries for the barbarian invasions to collapse Rome. There was no grand army, and no decisive battle. Rome fell to hordes of illegal immigrants who, by the way, were not Latino or Hispanic (except for the Visigoths).

Finally, it is grossly bigoted for anyone to assume that he knows “the sentiment that accompanies” someone else’s use of the terms “Latino” and “Hispanic.” This is an insinuation of racism that offers nothing whatever as evidence, and suggests an intent to put the whole topic outside the bounds of discussion. What other term are we to use? If “Latino” and “Hispanic” are proscribed, I can think of no substitute that everyone would accept, and it concerns me that that may be the intent. In the current political climate, when someone calls me an “Anglo” I could easily choose to take offense. But I don’t. I presume good will and accept it as a purely descriptive term. Let’s try to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Stonehouse,then I missused the word horde,I visualized kind of Attila and the Huns and could not really get the picture Tom was trying to get me into.It wasn´t meant to be sarcastical.
Now about the last paragraph,one of the definitions of Poltics is"the art to make believe".And some govern¡ments are very prone to use this technique to its fullest.Please try and follow my thoughts undefenssively,cause I am not attacking(except for 97,and I apologized)
Make believe a mass that “yanki” and “vampires” is the same stuff,make believe a mass that “hispanics” and “criminals” are the same stuff,and what I can see is that there is a cosmovision who is rejoicing,seeing how we are exhausted,barking at each other,divided,and taking steps to promote “Go home”,willing to use all our arguments against us.
My dad worked for an American co.I was a child,and all of a sudden he became a “traitor”,and you,those people whom dad loved and I had learnt to love ,“vampires”.I could not understand why under one cosmovision he should be more or less incarcerated,and under the other cosmovision he was responding to the rules of free market demands. and was praised for his job. Sounded madness.
Yes,it has to do with the thread.The Church says no deportation.Yet let´s say we will use “ecumenical arguments”(to put it some way,don´t take it too literal).How will you tackle deportation?If to Mexico,it is close by…and to Colombia?You can´t send them walking,you will hafve to use diplomatic reources…and to Venezuela,you will have to deal with Chavez,and this will mean many others will join in against,cause he was kind enough to call Bush a “donkey”…?Now multiply,rearrange the pieces on the chess board,and infer what this decision would lead tr better,read about our nations.
There are kangaroos in Australia,Queen Elizabeth in England,but a huge mass that does not know who is who in the story.
God bless you

 

[Ender]

The Church says no deportation.

This is flatly untrue. The Church says nothing whatever about deportation. There may be a number of individual bishops who oppose all deportation but their personal opinions do not constitute Church teaching on the subject. One may support or oppose deportation as one sees fit; they are equally moral positions inasmuch as neither is a moral choice. The question of deportation is not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[graciew]

This is flatly untrue. The Church says nothing whatever about deportation. There may be a number of individual bishops who oppose all deportation but their personal opinions do not constitute Church teaching on the subject. One may support or oppose deportation as one sees fit; they are equally moral positions inasmuch as neither is a moral choice. The question of deportation is not a moral issue.

Ender

Evangelium Vitae,point 3.Please read all the document so as to understand it in context.
God bless you.

 

[Ender]

Evangelium Vitae,point 3.Please read all the document so as to understand it in context.

I think your assumption of what the term means in that document is a serious misunderstanding of what the pope was addressing. There is no reason whatever to believe that what was meant was the return of illegal immigrants to their own country. In the context in which it was used it surely means the illegal removal of people from their own country - as in the deportation of gypsies to Auschwitz. This is certainly the context in which JPII wrote his letter to the Patriarch of Russia denouncing: "every form of violence, ethnic cleansing, deportation of peoples and their exclusion from society."

Clearly the Church does not teach that deportation in all its forms is immoral as is made plain by this 2005 document from the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People*: **“As a general rule, CCME *[Churches Committee on Migrants in Europe] *is against deportation of foreigners.” *Being opposed to something as a general rule is a far cry from something being intrinsically evil. As I said, deportation - in the context of illegal immigration - is not a moral issue.

Ender

 

[pnewton]

Today, even “hordes” seem to be easily offended. I looked up the web definition, and according to Google there is nothing in the term to suggest that a horde cannot move gradually.

The dictionary does not give the emotional content of words. “Horde” is carries a negative, as opposed to positive, connotation. Let us not be ignorant of the rhetoric we decide to use. This is not about being politically correct but recognizing when our own opinion affects word choice. If NBC spoke of a horde of Republicans gathering at the Lincoln Memorial, would we not question their bias in such a choice?

 

[graciew]

I think your assumption of what the term means in that document is a serious misunderstanding of what the pope was addressing. There is no reason whatever to believe that what was meant was the return of illegal immigrants to their own country. In the context in which it was used it surely means the illegal removal of people from their own country - as in the deportation of gypsies to Auschwitz. This is certainly the context in which JPII wrote his letter to the Patriarch of Russia denouncing: "every form of violence, ethnic cleansing, deportation of peoples and their exclusion from society."

Clearly the Church does not teach that deportation in all its forms is immoral as is made plain by this 2005 document from the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People*: **“As a general rule, CCME *[Churches Committee on Migrants in Europe] *is against deportation of foreigners.” *Being opposed to something as a general rule is a far cry from something being intrinsically evil. As I said, deportation - in the context of illegal immigration - is not a moral issue.

Ender

Ender,if you wish to go to Richardacombs first post,he opened this thread…I could not have written any better.
Every sentence confronts me to the distance I have to walk to my own closet,my own purse,my own agenda,my own familily,my own relationships,my own choices,head,heart,thoughts,etc.If I were in this thread and had not given a tiny step towards any of those,acknowledging that every thing I say goes back to me as an invitation,a challenge an opportunity to see how much of what I condemn I can see in me,I would simply be one more curious.That is the struggle too.
God bless you

 

[Ender]

Every sentence confronts me to the distance I have to walk to my own closet,my own purse,my own agenda,my own familily,my own relationships,my own choices,head,heart,thoughts,etc.If I were in this thread and had not given a tiny step towards any of those,acknowledging that every thing I say goes back to me as an invitation,a challenge an opportunity to see how much of what I condemn I can see in me,I would simply be one more curious.That is the struggle too.

You are challenged to do right. It is in that sense everything we do is judged, but you need to distinguish between wanting to do what is best and knowing what that is. If you and I, working things out as best we can, come to opposite conclusions about what to do, neither of us has sinned. At least one of us will necessarily be mistaken but neither of us sins for being wrong. On the other hand, even if we agree on what steps to take one of us could still sin if our reason for taking that step is immoral. That is, it is not the actions we take that are moral or immoral but our reasons for taking them. This is why I say that immigration is not a moral issue. We can behave immorally but that cannot be determined simply from the solutions we support. It is neither moral nor immoral to support the Arizona law; the reason for our position is what determines the morality of our choice and the same is true for all other proposed solutions to the immigration problem.

Ender

 

[Stonehouse]

Stonehouse,then I missused the word horde,I visualized kind of Attila and the Huns and could not really get the picture Tom was trying to get me into.It wasn´t meant to be sarcastical.
Now about the last paragraph,one of the definitions of Poltics is"the art to make believe".And some govern¡ments are very prone to use this technique to its fullest.Please try and follow my thoughts undefenssively,cause I am not attacking(except for 97,and I apologized)
Make believe a mass that “yanki” and “vampires” is the same stuff,make believe a mass that “hispanics” and “criminals” are the same stuff,and what I can see is that there is a cosmovision who is rejoicing,seeing how we are exhausted,barking at each other,divided,and taking steps to promote “Go home”,willing to use all our arguments against us.
My dad worked for an American co.I was a child,and all of a sudden he became a “traitor”,and you,those people whom dad loved and I had learnt to love ,“vampires”.I could not understand why under one cosmovision he should be more or less incarcerated,and under the other cosmovision he was responding to the rules of free market demands. and was praised for his job. Sounded madness.
Yes,it has to do with the thread.The Church says no deportation.Yet let´s say we will use “ecumenical arguments”(to put it some way,don´t take it too literal).How will you tackle deportation?If to Mexico,it is close by…and to Colombia?You can´t send them walking,you will hafve to use diplomatic reources…and to Venezuela,you will have to deal with Chavez,and this will mean many others will join in against,cause he was kind enough to call Bush a “donkey”…?Now multiply,rearrange the pieces on the chess board,and infer what this decision would lead tr better,read about our nations.
There are kangaroos in Australia,Queen Elizabeth in England,but a huge mass that does not know who is who in the story.
God bless you

Graceview, you seem to be very sincere “at heart.” I think part of the confusion here results from how differently we use language. For example, when you say that politics is “the art to make believe,” this can have two meanings, both of which are true. The first meaning would be “the art to make (other people) believe (some thing).” In other words, to persuade. The second meaning, and I think one not intended in the definition you found, would be “the art to ‘make-believe’.” That would be the art to “pretend.” In the first sense of the term, politics is legitimate as long as we employ reason and truth. But in the second sense, it is not legitimate because to pretend is to deceive. From your following points, it appears you may have understood politics in this second sense.

I don’t see “Hispanics” and "criminals as the same stuff at all, and I won’t pretend to. There may be some who conflate the two, though I don’t know anyone like that. But for every one who feels that all Hispanics are criminals there is a member of La Raza who sees immigration as a “Reconquista” and wants to take over the Western United States in the name of Mexico. These Hispanics openly despise “Gueros” and justify their racist view by a highly prejudicial revision of history and a “make-believe” image of pre-Columbian native culture.

It seems to me that we need to resist both these extremes, while at the same time working toward solutions that are both just and charitable. Charity requires that we, as individuals, do what we can to help those in need. Of course this applies to aliens even if they are illegal. But justice is a civil matter, and that means first and foremost that no-one, including illegal aliens, is above the law. I do not believe that the Catholic Church condemns deportation, though I acknowledge that some bishops appear to have taken such a position. Since this takes them into the realm of politics, they are outside their jurisdiction. The proper way to enforce law is a matter for the laity.

You have raised certain logistical questions that do raise a practical challenge. But this should not be confused with the underlying principle, unless you are saying that you only oppose deportation because it is difficult. Please keep in perspective the fact that the United States has for two centuries maintained the most generous immigration policies in the world, and is also the least punitive nation on earth when it comes to those who have violated immigration law.

Let me say that I hope you are here in this country legally and I appreciate your candid search for the truth in this matter. God bless you and all who are using their faith and their reason to search for the right answer to this difficult question.

 

[Stonehouse]

The dictionary does not give the emotional content of words. “Horde” is carries a negative, as opposed to positive, connotation. Let us not be ignorant of the rhetoric we decide to use. This is not about being politically correct but recognizing when our own opinion affects word choice. If NBC spoke of a horde of Republicans gathering at the Lincoln Memorial, would we not question their bias in such a choice?

A review of the discourse will show that we were not discussing the connotation of the term “horde,” but only the literal meaning. The question at issue was whether or not a horde could move “gradually.” However for the benefit of all those who choose to speak for “hordes,” and in an effort to avoid appearing “ignorant” in their eyes, I would point out that there is a very reasonable negative connotation associated with the illegal invasion and occupation of a foreign nation. (Please, let’s not quibble about “invasion” and “occupation.”) Like “scofflaw” or “jaywalker,” a “horde” that is in violation of just laws invites that negative connotation. There is a very simple way to avoid such connotations. Don’t break the law! The other option, of course, is a resort to Orwellian double-speak where all nuances of meaning are forbidden as a means of controlling thought itself. I trust that no one on this thread would attempt to impose that sort of political correctness.

 

[bobby_booshay]

I think your assumption of what the term means in that document is a serious misunderstanding of what the pope was addressing. There is no reason whatever to believe that what was meant was the return of illegal immigrants to their own country. In the context in which it was used it surely means the illegal removal of people from their own country - as in the deportation of gypsies to Auschwitz. This is certainly the context in which JPII wrote his letter to the Patriarch of Russia denouncing: "every form of violence, ethnic cleansing, deportation of peoples and their exclusion from society."

Clearly the Church does not teach that deportation in all its forms is immoral as is made plain by this 2005 document from the Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant People*: **“As a general rule, CCME *[Churches Committee on Migrants in Europe] *is against deportation of foreigners.” *Being opposed to something as a general rule is a far cry from something being intrinsically evil. As I said, deportation - in the context of illegal immigration - is not a moral issue.

Ender

I agree with you, unfortunately we had a brother religious on here claiming otherwise and is perhaps the source of this confusion.

 

[graciew]

The first meaning would be “the art to make (other people) believe (some thing).” In other words, to persuade. The second meaning, and I think one not intended in the definition you found, would be “the art to ‘make-believe’.” That would be the art to “pretend.” In the first sense of the term, politics is legitimate as long as we employ reason and truth. But in the second sense, it is not legitimate because to pretend is to deceive. From your following points, it appears you may have understood politics in this second sense.

I don’t see “Hispanics” and "criminals as the same stuff at all, and I won’t pretend to. There may be some who conflate the two, though I don’t know anyone like that. But for every one who feels that all Hispanics are criminals there is a member of La Raza who sees immigration as a “Reconquista” and wants to take over the Western United States in the name of Mexico. These Hispanics openly despise “Gueros” and justify their racist view by a highly prejudicial revision of history and a “make-believe” image of pre-Columbian native culture.

It seems to me that we need to resist both these extremes, while at the same time working toward solutions that are both just and charitable. Charity requires that we, as individuals, do what we can to help those in need. Of course this applies to aliens even if they are illegal. But justice is a civil matter, and that means first and foremost that no-one, including illegal aliens, is above the law. I do not believe that the Catholic Church condemns deportation, though I acknowledge that some bishops appear to have taken such a position. Since this takes them into the realm of politics, they are outside their jurisdiction. The proper way to enforce law is a matter for the laity.

You have raised certain logistical questions that do raise a practical challenge. But this should not be confused with the underlying principle, unless you are saying that you only oppose deportation because it is difficult. Please keep in perspective the fact that the United States has for two centuries maintained the most generous immigration policies in the world, and is also the least punitive nation on earth when it comes to those who have violated immigration law.

Let me say that I hope you are here in this country legally and I appreciate your candid search for the truth in this matter. God bless you and all who are using their faith and their reason to search for the right answer to this difficult question.

Stone house,yes,I know I may cause certain difficulties to be understood.It is the first meaning.It can be used for adequate or inadequate purposes.A doctor who can make a patient believe he can heal,will probably rule over the negative thoughts of the patient,and the patient will have a greater chance to be healed.
Now if terrorists make followers believe that individuals are nothing compared to the “great cause” they pursue,and foster the right to kill indiscriminately,they may not be deceiving in their eyes,but they will rule if they have the power,charisma or whatever to make a mass believe,and this one will follow.
Yes,I know how generous this nation is.Very.
No,I am not opposing deportation because it is difficult.
yes,I am here legally.
About the activists you mention,I do not know who is behind them.
God bless you.

 

[graciew]

Hi, Gracie
Now, not to put too fine a point on it… but, I am still waiting for a response on how you would respond to millions of illegal immigrant US nationals coming to your former homeland, setting up homes, crowding classrooms in school, doing any kind of work while trying to evade the police - and, don’t forget, demanding that English be used in official documents! Looking forward to hearing from you.

God bless

Tom,here are my thoughts.Our country has many illegal inmigrants who come and go depending on how proffitable exchange is for them,what they think they can expect vs what they really find,etc.We can´t really tell now who is legal and who is illegal.But this is also reflected in the citizenship arena,many are citizens by birth/like you are here,example) but pay no taxes.We may say that this situation has been happening throughout the years.
Our main issue is safety,and lack of jobs,but illegal only add to legal.What citizens do is about the same you do here.But there is much more corruption,criminals come in one door and leave next day by the same one,police are limited in resources,judicial system is slow or linked to political…but I do not believe I am the most qualified to describe the situation.
Illegal people do come to the country,and run the fate of our poorest people,they set up homes who are much worse than the ones they had in their own country,they gather round main cities,live crowded,without any type of safety,blinded by the flashes of stories of prosperity that are not true.Some do come for criminal purposes too,same as here.They do speak our language.
I can tell you what we do at our parrish if you wish.This I would know a little better how to answer.
God bless you.